Battle Breaker Bugs and Such

[Georgie]

The intent of this thread is for players to list game bugs and or arbitrary limitations to equipment function that they feel have changed the outcome of a battle or battles. Hopefully BF will read this thread and consider it a constructive commentary on items that would make the CM2 games even more fun to play. In which case I would probably have to bribe my wife even more than I do now. OK you go first.

[Childress]

Love the title, Geogie. So alliterative!

[Georgie]

Love the title, Geogie. So alliterative!

Nice word Childress, I had to look that sucker up.

[George MC]

A bad General blames the game?

[Baneman]

Well, this one doesn't generally lose a battle, but almost always loses the unit : ATG's can't be pulled/pushed backwards into cover / out of enemy LOS without first rotating 180 degrees.

This takes so long that whatever threat has generated the need to pull it back has either gone away or killed the ATG before it actually moves.

[Georgie]

A bad General blames the game?

Hi George MC, I certainly don't mind loosing a battle but some of the games that I have won I feel were won or won too easily because of the defensive set up faults that are caused by the LOF uncertainty problem and the AT gun targeting bug and I do mind winning if I think its because of a game fault. The LOF uncertainty and the AT gun targeting bug sometimes occur for a single gun emplacement making it too easy for a tank to get thru the area that the gun is covering. I am attempting in the huge scenario that I am making to "fudge" my way around the targeting bug and to make every effort to minimize the LOF problem. I can't eliminate the targeting bug but I can reduce its effect by careful placement and screening of guns and tanks. I can do this because the scenario that I am making will be played as a human attacker against the computer defense and it uses a fictitious map so I can design the map contours and the vegetation to mitigate at least a portion of the problem. People playing the defensive in a PBEM game don't have this option and it will hamper their defense considerably if it depends upon AT guns for a lot of its defensive firepower and if they try to "key hole" their tanks. This is especially true with a small or medium sized map because of the fast angle change of a tank crossing the field of fire of the AT gun and the increased possiblity of the LOF not matching the LOS.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=109011

[winkelried]

IMHO the biggest battle breaker is the enemy - w/o the enemy i could win every battle ... although :confused:

[Redwolf]

I think it's more productive to name what should be next after the MG fix in 2.01.

IMHO it's the complex around foxholes, concealment and protection from same, for towed guns in particular, and some other assorted issues with towed guns (not being able to back up, some odd turn/traverse behavior, on indirect fire sometimes constantly firing into the same fixed obstacle with no stopping, some "interesting" in-and-out of command issues). Mix in concealment from vegetation, it's basically all going to the same effect on un-teething guns.

I rate this as important because I am finally making my way page-by-page though the excellent two-volume "Then and now" large books on Market Garden. The number of cases where individual guns held up 30 Corp or substantial parts of it is staggering. We really need to get the thrill of driving into a gun-covered zone back.

[Sailor Malan2]

Well, this one doesn't generally lose a battle, but almost always loses the unit : ATG's can't be pulled/pushed backwards into cover / out of enemy LOS without first rotating 180 degrees.

This takes so long that whatever threat has generated the need to pull it back has either gone away or killed the ATG before it actually moves.

The visual images may not be particularly realistic, but the end effect is perfectly valid... the idea of an ATG in 1944 'dodging in to cover' when a threat appears is rather laughable. A small ATG (50mm Pak 38) weighs 1800lb. 75mm is 2600+. We are not talking portable in combat here...

[Sailor Malan2]

I rate this as important because I am finally making my way page-by-page though the excellent two-volume "Then and now" large books on Market Garden. The number of cases where individual guns held up 30 Corp or substantial parts of it is staggering. We really need to get the thrill of driving into a gun-covered zone back.

Make sure you have the range right... they weren't being held up by guns at a few meters... try nearer 1000m, a single road to advance and suitable crews, and I think you will find the gun lasts a while in CM... The gun crews that didn't manage to get it right wont be figuring much in your book!

[Pete Wenman]

We really need to get the thrill of driving into a gun-covered zone back.

Oh believe me - you don't want it to get any tougher, and I'm talking from XXX Corps perspective.

"Operation Market Garden Then and now" Vol 2 page 577 is open on my desk as we speak

"It's a ridiculous place to try to operate tanks" - yep my pixeltruppen would agree

P

[c2yeung]

It appears to me that even if there is only one lone enemy soldier left in an objective zone I am defending, The AAR says I failed even though I have more units left in that zone. To ensure a successful mission, I have to comb through every inch of the entire objective area to make sure there is no enemy force sneaking in. Which side wins if both the attacking force and the defending force have units occupying that contested objective at the end of the game?

My experience tells me the AI has an advantage in fighting in forest/wooded area and house-to-house fighting. Maybe it is my bad tactics, I find it very difficult/frustrating to flush out enemies inside a building and/or forest/wooded area without suffering much heavier casualties than the enemies. I am sure some of you feel the same way losing 4-5 men to storm a building only to find out that there was only 1 or 2 soldiers in there. To add salt to injury, it was a lowly ammo bearer. This ratio of loss is unacceptable.

[Wodin]

I do believe we've been told the AI has no advantage over us when it comes to this sort of thing.

As for game breakers..there are some annoying issues at times but nothing game breaking in my opinion.

It appears to me that even if there is only one lone enemy soldier left in an objective zone I am defending, The AAR says I failed even though I have more units left in that zone. To ensure a successful mission, I have to comb through every inch of the entire objective area to make sure there is no enemy force sneaking in. Which side wins if both the attacking force and the defending force have units occupying that contested objective at the end of the game?

My experience tells me the AI has an advantage in fighting in forest/wooded area and house-to-house fighting. Maybe it is my bad tactics, I find it very difficult/frustrating to flush out enemies inside a building and/or forest/wooded area without suffering much heavier casualties than the enemies. I am sure some of you feel the same way losing 4-5 men to storm a building only to find out that there was only 1 or 2 soldiers in there. To add salt to injury, it was a lowly ammo bearer. This ratio of loss is unacceptable.

[Michael Emrys]

Which side wins if both the attacking force and the defending force have units occupying that contested objective at the end of the game?

I believe in that case neither side gets points for that objective, in which case victory is determined by points won in other ways. If anything, this strikes me as more likely as having a pro-defender bias, even if only a slight one.

Michael

[winkelried]

It appears to me that even if there is only one lone enemy soldier left in an objective zone I am defending, The AAR says I failed even though I have more units left in that zone. To ensure a successful mission, I have to comb through every inch of the entire objective area to make sure there is no enemy force sneaking in. Which side wins if both the attacking force and the defending force have units occupying that contested objective at the end of the game?

My experience tells me the AI has an advantage in fighting in forest/wooded area and house-to-house fighting. Maybe it is my bad tactics, I find it very difficult/frustrating to flush out enemies inside a building and/or forest/wooded area without suffering much heavier casualties than the enemies. I am sure some of you feel the same way losing 4-5 men to storm a building only to find out that there was only 1 or 2 soldiers in there. To add salt to injury, it was a lowly ammo bearer. This ratio of loss is unacceptable.

As I said above - the enemy is the biggest game breaker

[George MC]

It appears to me that even if there is only one lone enemy soldier left in an objective zone I am defending, The AAR says I failed even though I have more units left in that zone. To ensure a successful mission, I have to comb through every inch of the entire objective area to make sure there is no enemy force sneaking in. Which side wins if both the attacking force and the defending force have units occupying that contested objective at the end of the game?

My experience tells me the AI has an advantage in fighting in forest/wooded area and house-to-house fighting. Maybe it is my bad tactics, I find it very difficult/frustrating to flush out enemies inside a building and/or forest/wooded area without suffering much heavier casualties than the enemies. I am sure some of you feel the same way losing 4-5 men to storm a building only to find out that there was only 1 or 2 soldiers in there. To add salt to injury, it was a lowly ammo bearer. This ratio of loss is unacceptable.

The AI does not have an advantage but the defender does. Yup clearing built up areas/woodland is expensive for the attacker as the nature of the terrain (close up ambush) will always favour the defender - mopping up is a misnomer I feel for what is a close up and often bloody business.

To reduce your casualty count have you tried hosing down buildings etc with fire (either direct or indirect) before sending your grunts in to get up close and personal. As far as practically possible I do this. It saves casualties.

Scenario designers can help reduce this 'unfair' effect by having smaller objective zones - although often having a larger objective zone may well be a scenario design choice i.e. the attacker has to clear and secure objectives, as often has to happen in RL. You don't want stay behinds popping up and taking our your supply echelons or re-establishing defensive positions behind your lines eh?

[hoolaman]

The visual images may not be particularly realistic, but the end effect is perfectly valid... the idea of an ATG in 1944 'dodging in to cover' when a threat appears is rather laughable. A small ATG (50mm Pak 38) weighs 1800lb. 75mm is 2600+. We are not talking portable in combat here...

The tactical reality of running away from a tank I agree with, but as for their portability, I think you are wrong.

On a reasonable surface you could push them running. Imagine, can you push a large car with six guys?

Plenty of good footage of how portable and how easily packed up and swung around these guns can be.

VIDEO

[agusto]

Maybe i am just too tolerant, but there are no game breakers in CMBN for me!

[c3k]

I've got a single-axle trailer that weighs 1,100 pounds, empty. I can move it around by myself...if there's a smooth, level surface. 1,800 pounds, relatively well balanced over a single axle is child's play for a few men.

[Georgie]

Maybe i am just too tolerant, but there are no game breakers in CMBN for me!

Hi agusto, the thread title is "Battle Breakers" not game breakers. There are no "game breakers" as far as I am concerned but there are some "battle breakers" especially in small battles or urban battles. Some times, in my opinion, the outcome of a battle or a fire fight in a battle is altered from what it would be IRL by a bug or restriction of weapon usage. I doesn't always occur but sometimes it does.

[barrage]

I've got a single-axle trailer that weighs 1,100 pounds, empty. I can move it around by myself...if there's a smooth, level surface. 1,800 pounds, relatively well balanced over a single axle is child's play for a few men.

I think the point is how were they used in combat. I have read no reports that in combat ATGs were rolled back and forth. The accounts I have read have had them in cover and firing at the enemy, no tactical rolling back and forth.

Doug

[Badger73]

I've got a single-axle trailer that weighs 1,100 pounds, empty. I can move it around by myself...if there's a smooth, level surface. 1,800 pounds, relatively well balanced over a single axle is child's play for a few men.

It is easy in this case because Newton's 3rd Law of Motion (For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action) has not been applied. In the case of a towed gun carriage, recoil from firing causes the trail spades to press into the ground somewhat. With your half ton trailer, imagine the difficulty you would have digging its tongue out of the ground before you could lift it to gain the correct balance for those playing children to move around.

I think the point is how were they used in combat. I have read no reports that in combat ATGs were rolled back and forth. The accounts I have read have had them in cover and firing at the enemy, no tactical rolling back and forth.

Doug

Doug notes things exactly right. Once a towed weapon fires, its stuck in for the nonce due to recoil (the force of which depends on amount of gun caliber propellent and the hardness of ground where sited). Usually, the carriage is hard to un-stick without the crew exposing themselves to enemy return fires.

To the point of this thread, lack of ATG gun mobility is not a Battle Breaker Bug for me.

[womble]

I've got a single-axle trailer that weighs 1,100 pounds, empty. I can move it around by myself...if there's a smooth, level surface. 1,800 pounds, relatively well balanced over a single axle is child's play for a few men.

Over the easter weekend, I was camping. The field we were setting up our tents in was out of bounds to vehicles because of the mud. 4x4s could negotiate it; most modern cars driven by most modern drivers would have ended up mired. We had to haul a small trailer with at most about 300kilos in it, so total gross weight was probably in the order of 500kg (approx 1100lb). That wasn't quick with 5 pushers, and this is a grassy (though puddinged) field. Trying to shove the thing about in the margins of a hedgerow or under the trees would have been a near impossibility without twice as many, and they'd've needed ropes to clew onto. Ground conditions make a big difference.

I can push-start a family car solo on level tarmac. Even a slight grade (assuming I had to go up it) would make that impossible, and forget about it on grass unless I've got cleats on and it's dry and short.

Still, guns should be more like vehicles: able to be reversed, and able to be dismounted and remounted.

[Sailor Malan2]

I wasn't saying you couldn't physically move a gun... just that they didnt do it in combat. Deploying a ATG on a smooth hard surface with no cover is a measure of improvisation or desperation. Taking your gun crew (normally spread out around the gun and ammo supply) to cluster round the gun (standing) and push is asking for a burst of MG fire to take them all out, or a near miss HE round (mortar, shell etc). Going to ground around the gun... yes, pushing it to reposition in lulls, yes. Pushing it in to cover to dodge a threat... dont think so. At best the crew would head for cover and leave the gun, hoping to recrew it later (or rout to the rear...)

Thus I think being able to voluntarily abandon and recrew guns I would support. Not a game (or Battle) breaker though

[zmoney]

Instead of asking for reverse we should be asking for the ability to conceal them better. Plus they should be able to dig in or have better cover in trenchs etc.... I think its way to easy to spot them now even before they fire and then subsequently take them out.